What does Brian Sell do at Home Depot? (Read 1146 times)

No, I keep saying that a lot (I don't know if that is "most", but it is more than "a few") of olympians are not paid to compete in the sport they compete in (I'm not limiting it to runners) at least paid enough not to augment with other employment, and mostly I'm trying to say that they aren't the first class jet setters that you've cast them to be. I'm not trying to say that you've been casting it as good or bad. I'm saying that you are making a generalization that you have no real data to make. So. You want me to back it up with data, well, heck... why don't you try? The disconnect between you and me... which is why I will now back away... is that you are focused on runners specifically, I guess (it didn't seem so at first), and I meant our olympic team as a whole. If you think the majority of the women's water polo team makes a jet setting living solely by practicing and competing in water polo... well... no. Now, specific to runners and those lucrative shoe deals.... yeah, some of them. I'd be willing to bet that for some (say, the two women marathon runners NOT named Deena Kastor), it's not quite the deal you may think it is.

Ok, let's not get into heated discussion about this. The amateur ideal of the Olympics has been buried in the past. If you really need some data, just look at the Olympians. Besides the T&F & swimming, e.g. the whole basketball team is pro, the majority of the women b ball team is pro. Pretty much the whole baseball team, the majority of the women soccer team, the whole soccer team. The whole women table tennis team from US were ex national team players from China. The list goes on and on. For any country who send more than 50 people to the Olympics, there will not be more than a handful of them with more amateur athletes than pros. There is nothing wrong with that. Audience wants to see the best athletes. And I don't think anyone wants to see amateurs anyway, unless the performance is the same.

Amateur sports does not exists at the olympic/wc level, hasn't for a long time even in some of the more obscure sports. some sportsmen/women may have 'jobs' but it is common to be on leave and focus on sports or to have a 'job' that is so integrated into their training schedule that it is not a job in the sense most people understand it. none of those athletes can really afford to have a 9-5 job and it is all ok. the competition is harsh and to be honest, it is fun to see those athletes to push the limits no matter if is T&F, swimming, bicycling, sailing or you-name-it.

there's also a big difference between getting paid a stipend to buy food while you train, and being a rich jet-setter, which is what you are implying. Outside of basketball, baseball, and a FEW T&F elites, this isn't the case.

Which, of course, is exactly the point KenCamet was making. Correctly. I think there's a bit of a communications failure here, maybe a language barrier. But for those curious, here is the entire Team USA, something like 650 of them, if I remember the opening ceremony. You can count and check me. Look at the list and read the profiles. You decide how many of these unknown faces in no publicity sports are "professional" by the definition offered here. (Actually if you read the profiles, some of them list occupations. You'll find real estate agents and college students and construction workers and lots of athletes who work as coaches. Does that make them "professional?" I dunno.) http://teamusa.org/athlete/usoc_athletes And of course a whopping 130 of them work for Home Depot. Which is pretty cool - they work part-time for full-time pay and benefits. But that ain't exactly "professional," is it? (Remind me to shop at Home Depot, by the way. Good company.) http://www.nbcolympics.com/wlwt/news/newsid=197348.html And here's an interesting article on Team USA funding from 2006: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/February/20060209164553jmnamdeirf0.9387018.html And here's a pretty good discussion from 2004 which pretty much clears up the debate, I think: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/2004-08-09-olympics_x.htm

It's the untold story behind dozens of athletes competing in the Olympic Games. Many athletes are able to compete and train in large part because of the support they've gotten from their employers. Companies have given their employee-athletes time off with pay to compete in qualifying events. They've paid them full-time wages and health benefits even though their training means they can work only part time. They've found co-workers to cover for them while they're away. ..... Encouragement from an employer can help bring Olympic dreams to fruition, and that support goes beyond helping employees make it to the Games. It also means making sure they have a job when they're done. Many athletes face a tough transition after the Olympics. After months and years of training, they may be thrust into the job market without a steady employment history or business contacts. Some athletes who've had an employer's support throughout training — and a job to come home to — say they can focus more on their sport. Consider Jimmy Pedro, the No. 1-ranked U.S. athlete in judo. It was 2000, and he had just competed in the Olympics in Sydney, finishing a disappointing fifth. His plan was to retire and find a job. But he wasn't sure who would hire him. He had graduated in 1994 from Brown University in Providence, but he didn't enter the working world until the age of 30. That meant he had a six-year résumé gap, when he'd held only odd jobs. ..... "People are very openly rooting for him," says Steve Pogorzelski, president of Monster North America. "If he brings home the gold, he's promised to flip me at a company meeting." His boss, Doug Hall, director of marketing services, adds, "I can't stress enough how valuable it is to support Jimmy, the sense of inspiration he brings to the company." Pedro slowly cut back from a 40-hour workweek to about 20, and the company has given him time off for training. It also pays him his full salary and benefits. "When I competed in Sydney, I didn't know what my future held. This time, I'm more relaxed. I know I have a job," says Pedro, ...

Interesting article.

This thread makes me long for a VO2max discussion.

I said I was backing away, and I am. This is a tangent (sorry)

Shoe deals aren't the easiest thing to come by. A friend of mine who has run in quite a few trials, been in the world championships, and finished as the first American woman at Boston can't even get a deal with a company to supply her with shoes.

<tangent> Meanwhile, I know 2 different female marathoners who are in the 5:00-7:00 finishing range. I mean "hours", not minutes/mile pace. One gets free shoes from Saucony. The other gets free shoes from Brooks. Weird, huh. (I'm not trying to say that they should or shouldn't. It's just interesting that some people do, some people don't, and there are no real 'rules' to cover it.) Dealing with sponsors and trying to drum up sponsorships can be a truly frustrating experience. Comes down to who you know, how you ask, and how the planets align. </tangent>

Which, of course, is exactly the point KenCamet was making. Correctly. I think there's a bit of a communications failure here, maybe a language barrier. But for those curious, here is the entire Team USA, something like 650 of them, if I remember the opening ceremony. You can count and check me. Look at the list and read the profiles. You decide how many of these unknown faces in no publicity sports are "professional" by the definition offered here. (Actually if you read the profiles, some of them list occupations. You'll find real estate agents and college students and construction workers and lots of athletes who work as coaches. Does that make them "professional?" I dunno.) http://teamusa.org/athlete/usoc_athletes And of course a whopping 130 of them work for Home Depot. Which is pretty cool - they work part-time for full-time pay and benefits. But that ain't exactly "professional," is it? (Remind me to shop at Home Depot, by the way. Good company.) http://www.nbcolympics.com/wlwt/news/newsid=197348.html And here's an interesting article on Team USA funding from 2006: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/February/20060209164553jmnamdeirf0.9387018.html And here's a pretty good discussion from 2004 which pretty much clears up the debate, I think: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/2004-08-09-olympics_x.htm Interesting article.

Good research, here is another one that I saw before I realized you did some research too. http://www.cleveland.com/olympics/index.ssf/2008/08/some_fulltime_athletes_have_fu.html

Almost all US Olympic runners (not field athletes) make enough to be full-time professionals. Those who do not, usually pick up a contract after qualifying. I don't have statistics, but I have met much of the US team, and I know most of their stories. Sell also does not need to work at Home Depot--he wants to. Not everyone can sleep, eat, and stretch all day without going crazy. There are others like Sell who could be full time, but choose to do something on the side. I know some who do freelance graphic design or website work (stuff that you can take with you, with flexible time commitments). At the trials level, you are correct--most do not count as full time pros. There is a big difference between a national class runner and an Olympian. 60-80k is a pretty common Nike contract size for non-superstar Olympians (distance runners). Sprinters make quite a bit more. Superstars like Ritz also make more. Hall will probably get a minimum of 200k to toe the line at his next marathon. If he does well this weekend, he could get more than 500k. He would be considerably more valuable to NY than even Geb.